Re: [Sidrops] Publication has been requested for draft-ietf-sidrops-lta-use-cases-04

Di Ma <> Sat, 12 January 2019 22:43 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B686C131133; Sat, 12 Jan 2019 14:43:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id epJDY6rnFmYE; Sat, 12 Jan 2019 14:43:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 776F5131132; Sat, 12 Jan 2019 14:43:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Alimail-AntiSpam: AC=CONTINUE; BC=0.09190307|-1; CH=green; FP=0|0|0|0|0|-1|-1|-1; HT=e01l07391;; NM=1; PH=DS; RN=6; RT=6; SR=0; TI=SMTPD_---.DksGQ4W_1547333017;
Received: from fp:SMTPD_---.DksGQ4W_1547333017) by; Sun, 13 Jan 2019 06:43:38 +0800
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gb2312"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.2 \(3445.102.3\))
From: Di Ma <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2019 06:43:35 +0800
Cc: Warren Kumari <>, Chris Morrow <>, SIDROps Chairs <>,, IESG_Secretary <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <>
To: Nick Hilliard <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.102.3)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Sidrops] Publication has been requested for draft-ietf-sidrops-lta-use-cases-04
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: A list for the SIDR Operations WG <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2019 22:43:54 -0000


> 在 2019年1月13日,06:20,Nick Hilliard <> 写道:
> Warren Kumari wrote on 12/01/2019 18:49:
>> I'm returning this document to the Working Group because I do not see sufficient evidence of consensus.
>> With no hats - I personally believe that documenting the use cases is useful, and would like to see this / a document describe the operational practices of having a local TA.
> this is likely to be useful from the point of view of dealing with long term concerns about centralisation of control of the global routing infrastructure, that have been aired from time to time in various fora, both private and public.  The three example cases are realistic (cf: RIPE NCC court order regarding registration of resources in 2011).
> It would also be important to note that the local trust anchor mechanism suggested here could also be created to override legitimate announcements, e.g. states who wish to control the routing tables of service providers in their legal jurisdiction.  Knives make no judgement about what they cut through.
> I support publication of the draft.  It may need more content, e.g. description of methods to implement the ideas that it suggests.

There is a standardized way to do so, as specified by RFC 8416, called SLURM, which by the way has been supported by some RP software such as Routinator and RPSTIR.

I agree with what Steve suggested, draft-ietf-sidrops-lta-use-cases should cite SLURM.